Switch Theme:

Reworked PP forum live - Faction forums removed  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Snord




Midwest USA

 Vermis wrote:
 Red_Five wrote:
Power creep just means your older units are less effective relative to new models/units.

Which means you win less with them, so you stop using the old things that you bought, and buy more new things that are more effective, until the next new things are ready to buy.
PP, GW and FFG each deal with this problem in a different way.

I think you're missing my point. All those methods are sticking-plasters, covering over the cracks caused by the bigger problem: the constant churn of new models (or cards) and their attendant new rules. The thing that keeps money flowing into the businesses but frustrates gamers with power creep, imbalance, edition churn (as much or more about making gamers buy more minis as about 'fixing things') and so on.
To quote Frozenwaste's sig, "If you are dissatisfied with the rules it could be that you have mistaken a miniatures marketing tool for a game." It honestly bothers me that so many do. I won't say 'stop playing those games', but at least realise what GW, PP, WotC et al are trying to do with them, and that it's not the way all games are, or should be. To quote another guy's sig, from elsewhere, "Free your hobby! Be creative and stop slavishly following the damn Book."

Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordOfTheSloths wrote:
Unlike GW/PP, where looking for individuals (let alone groups) who play earlier editions is only slightly easier than looking for a virgin in a maternity ward.
Yup. Delicately put. This is just one aspect of what I mean when I talk about gamers viewing the product churn as normal. "Uuurgh... must buy new edishun... it are new... that mean better... they no sell old edishun no more... no sell no buy mean dead... must buy new... they sell new so must buy... must buy... buy... buy... buy..."

Reminds me of roleplaying games, and how some players and game masters have to follow the rules to the letter, with no room for anything else when figuring out the game. Hogwash, I say! In my experience in both wargaming and roleplaying, sometimes making up your own rules are the best way to enjoy the game, or even to better understand the game you are playing. Back in my dungeon master days in 4th edition D&D, the players would get creative and try to do something not handled by the rules, and I said "roll for it!", and that led us to some very memorable moments.

Sticking to just "the rules" is creatively stifling, and only perpetuates the problems already had in people's mindsets. If it wasn't for the fact that it is hard enough to learn one game, but asking people to learn a new game made of home-brewed rules can be a turn-off for many people ("if GW can't get it right, how can you?"). If I lived closer to more gamers and could get in more games, I probably would just re-write my own custom form of 40K rules that fit better with how I picture the fluff.

Davout wrote:
There is a simple solution to avoiding power creep. Play historicals. Find a period that interest you, a figure scale that you like to paint and a rule set that you enjoy playing.

You have the entirety of human conflict to choose from (we've spent a lot of time killing each other, your choices are broad) and no rule set can dictate what figs you use. Plus the factions are fixed. Napoleons Imperial Guard are not all of a sudden going to get a shiny new type of cannon or an upgraded commander that makes them more competitive. A pike block is always going to work in the same way and can't be needed by an edition change. GW and PP are minitures companies that happen to publish a set of rules that that's us push their stuff around the table. Warlord is also a minitures company but you don't have to use their rules if you don't like them or buy their figs if you like their rules but don't like their sculpt style. It's a nice change.

But how accepting are historical wargamers to inaccurate color schemes? I know of some people that get aggravated at Horus Heresy armies not being painted the "right" color, how do historical wargamers feel about it? I appreciate the comment though, I always feel that historical wargaming gets left out of the broader conversation of rules and miniatures. I dream of one day having a Roman army painted up in a unique color scheme, but there is no one in my area that plays historicals (unless you count Flames of War, but that's not the Classical period).
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

Reminds me of roleplaying games, and how some players and game masters have to follow the rules to the letter, with no room for anything else when figuring out the game. Hogwash, I say! In my experience in both wargaming and roleplaying, sometimes making up your own rules are the best way to enjoy the game, or even to better understand the game you are playing. Back in my dungeon master days in 4th edition D&D, the players would get creative and try to do something not handled by the rules, and I said "roll for it!", and that led us to some very memorable moments.


I agree, but I think this is significantly easier to do with role playing games like D&D for a few reasons:

- First off, you have a closed group. Once you establish some rules, your group can continue using those rules for the entirety of the campaign. With a wargame, you're often battling against strangers - so you have to hope that they'll all be accommodating towards whatever rules you want to change. And that, if they want to change rules themselves, that the changes they propose will be as reasonable as your own.

- In RPGs, you're not really competing against anyone (DMs don't win by killing the players). So, even if the rule changes give one person an advantage, it makes little difference. However, asking for a potential advantage in a competitive game is going to be a very different matter. What's more, even if both players agree that a particular rule is bad and in need of changing, they may be unable to agree on what the change should be. Not to mention that seemingly simple changes can necessitate further changes. For example, let's say both players of a 40k game hate the wound-allocation mechanism and want to go back to 5th. Okay, great. Now what about all the units with bonuses to Loot Out Sir? Are those bonuses just ignored? Should they be changed so that they have an effect within the 5e wound allocation rules (which will get even harder when not all units have the same bonus)? Should these units just get a small point discount to compensate them? If so, what should the discount be, and should it vary based on the cost of the model or be a flat figure? You get the idea.

- Finally, in an RPG, you have a game master who literally has the job of being the arbiter of rules and house rules/improvisation. Hence, even if the players can't agree, they have a (more or less) independent party who can actually give a definitive ruling the change. With a competitive game, you don't have any such body. All you've got is two people, neither of whom has the authority to make a definitive decision.

I agree that it can be nice to mess around with the rules, but I think this is vastly easier to do in RPGs than it is in tabletop wargames.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut



SoCal

 Vermis wrote:
 Red_Five wrote:
Power creep just means your older units are less effective relative to new models/units.


Which means you win less with them, so you stop using the old things that you bought, and buy more new things that are more effective, until the next new things are ready to buy.

PP, GW and FFG each deal with this problem in a different way.


I think you're missing my point. All those methods are sticking-plasters, covering over the cracks caused by the bigger problem: the constant churn of new models (or cards) and their attendant new rules. The thing that keeps money flowing into the businesses but frustrates gamers with power creep, imbalance, edition churn (as much or more about making gamers buy more minis as about 'fixing things') and so on.
To quote Frozenwaste's sig, "If you are dissatisfied with the rules it could be that you have mistaken a miniatures marketing tool for a game." It honestly bothers me that so many do. I won't say 'stop playing those games', but at least realise what GW, PP, WotC et al are trying to do with them, and that it's not the way all games are, or should be. To quote another guy's sig, from elsewhere, "Free your hobby! Be creative and stop slavishly following the damn Book."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordOfTheSloths wrote:
Unlike GW/PP, where looking for individuals (let alone groups) who play earlier editions is only slightly easier than looking for a virgin in a maternity ward.


Yup. Delicately put. This is just one aspect of what I mean when I talk about gamers viewing the product churn as normal. "Uuurgh... must buy new edishun... it are new... that mean better... they no sell old edishun no more... no sell no buy mean dead... must buy new... they sell new so must buy... must buy... buy... buy... buy..."


I couldn't agree more. For years, before I finally cut off GW entirely, I used to advocate for divisional tournament play, with separate divisions for multiple editions and player choice of which division they wanted to play in. But GW (and now, sadly, PP) have been entirely too successful in creating that Pavlovian response to their marketing schemes. If divisional play were ever to be implemented, I would likely return to playing 40K in a New York minute -- I haven't sold off my SEVEN armies yet, nor all the 3/3.5/4/5 books I acquired over time.

"Word to your moms, I came to drop bombs." -- House of Pain 
   
Made in gb
Posts with Authority






Norn Iron

Davout wrote:There is a simple solution to avoiding power creep. Play historicals. Find a period that interest you, a figure scale that you like to paint and a rule set that you enjoy playing.


Historicals are a great example. No-one can 'own' the background so immediately the closed rules-minis-fluff ecosystem is impossible. (Although at times it seemed like Warlord and Battlefront ["The home of WWII gaming"] were having a bleedin' good stab at it.) It's much more apparent that you can pick and choose the rules and minis you like best, after choosing the setting.

vipoid wrote:I appreciate the thought, but it's of little help to those of us who prefer fantasy or sci-fi settings to historical ones.


But it's not so difficult with sci-fi and fantasy either. There are SF/F rules and games that can be adapted for whatever setting and minis you like - that are designed to slot in any setting and minis. E.g. gamers have been playing LotR long before the films existed, let alone GW bringing out the licensed game based on them. Even using Warhammer rules, back when they were more generic (or, if you please, inclusive) and not locked into the Warhammer world background. (In fact, GW had a license for LotR minis back in the 80s. I don't think they bothered to make a specific game for them, just put them out for whatever game, but I could be wrong.)

The problem is becoming entrenched in that view of rules being locked into a setting and minis. Not a difficult thing to happen if GW of the last few decades - and the businesses and games that follow their example - are your main frame of reference in gaming. And it's made harder to break away from thanks to the way these games pile on the - IMO - arbitrary rules and modifiers and dress them up as 'character' and 'tactics'.
I've mentioned in another topic about looking at my handful of MkI cards. I've been shaking my head at all the spells and powers Stryker got, and the sheer wall 'o' text to explain the Sentinel's chain gun rules. (That frankly, boils down to 'it shoots lots of bullets so it can hit lots of targets'.) Just as I've shaken my head at the walls 'o' text on Malifaux cards; the 'this unit does these special things 'cos we say so' rules in GW army books and codicies; the dead-tree breeze-block known as the Infinity rulebook, etc... And at the number of GW gamers, specifically, that I've seen in the process of giving up on 40K or WFB due to all the usual reasons; but who held a special horror for other games with more generic or streamlined rules - including those they could use their existing collections with - because they just don't have all those unique unit or character rules, all the fiddly processes and micromanagement, that they're used to, and that they think give their armies personality.

There was a lot of hooting at that guy who burned his dark elves when AoS was released, but in my eyes it was the same kind of mental block or conditioned thinking that prevents too many gamers from sticking to favoured editions, or moving their armies to other rules. It just involved a bit more heat.

And it's a pity because a lot of those, what you might call 'indy' rulesets, without a mini range to sell, are written to succeed on their own merits. A bit more abstracted, not so much with the specific named units of those rules=setting games, but with more clarity, fewer clashes and loopholes, practically no edition churn, and dare I say more balance. The only game I've seen from the rules-minis-fluff set that comes close is KoW, and I think that's because of it's beginning as an alternate ruleset for WFB armies. Like other indy games, it had to entice players with something other than fancy rules attached to specific models.

vipoid wrote:- First off, you have a closed group... With a wargame, you're often battling against strangers


This is another miscomprehension that's a result of GW's old dominance and peculiar system. Make the GW shop the gaming venue, or make 40K and FB the most popular SF/F games in the FLGS, where everyone's playing the same thing wherever you go, and PUGs start to feel natural, if not the most natural way to get a game in. Carry that over to other big-splash all-in-one games where you're pretty sure what rules are being used with those minis - WMH, Malifaux, FoW, and so on.
It's not the case everywhere, with these and other styles of game. I started out by hanging around in a Games Workshop, but most of my wargaming experience has been over kitchen tables and in small clubs - in 'closed' groups.

And to be frank, when I hear people talk about PUGs against strangers being the way of wargames, I think 'what - don't you talk to anyone?'

...

Can anyone remind me what the original topic of this thread was...?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/03/10 21:51:15


I'm sooo, sooo sorry.

Plog - Random sculpts and OW Helves 9/3/23 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 Vermis wrote:
But it's not so difficult with sci-fi and fantasy either. There are SF/F rules and games that can be adapted for whatever setting and minis you like - that are designed to slot in any setting and minis.


Could you maybe give some examples?

 Vermis wrote:

This is another miscomprehension that's a result of GW's old dominance and peculiar system. Make the GW shop the gaming venue, or make 40K and FB the most popular SF/F games in the FLGS, where everyone's playing the same thing wherever you go, and PUGs start to feel natural, if not the most natural way to get a game in. Carry that over to other big-splash all-in-one games where you're pretty sure what rules are being used with those minis - WMH, Malifaux, FoW, and so on.
It's not the case everywhere, with these and other styles of game. I started out by hanging around in a Games Workshop, but most of my wargaming experience has been over kitchen tables and in small clubs - in 'closed' groups.


I get what you're saying. However, even with a small group of friends, I've found getting everyone to agree on the most minor of rule changes akin to trying to herd cats.

 Vermis wrote:
And to be frank, when I hear people talk about PUGs against strangers being the way of wargames, I think 'what - don't you talk to anyone?'


I fear I'm not following the point you're trying to make with this.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in gb
Posts with Authority






Norn Iron

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
If it wasn't for the fact that it is hard enough to learn one game...


I've seen that used by disgruntled players to explain why they can't move on; but other rulesets don't have the sheer area-the-size-of-Wales volume of paper that 40K, WMH et al need to hold their rules. They can even be more intuitive, too. I won't say there's no chance of a misremembered subtlety or a transplanted rule (I've had those) but that's what reference cards are for.

("if GW can't get it right, how can you?"


Oh, I've seen that one used too. It assumes that GW want to get it right. Or at least, assumes they want to get it right for the gamer.

But how accepting are historical wargamers to inaccurate color schemes? I know of some people that get aggravated at Horus Heresy armies not being painted the "right" color, how do historical wargamers feel about it? I appreciate the comment though, I always feel that historical wargaming gets left out of the broader conversation of rules and miniatures. I dream of one day having a Roman army painted up in a unique color scheme, but there is no one in my area that plays historicals (unless you count Flames of War, but that's not the Classical period).


I'll bet that HH gamers have nothing on Napoleonic players! I understand the appeal of replicating historic (or inverted comma 'historic') regiments and such, but sometimes I catch myself. I have a big, almost 2" thick book here, 'The Napoleonic Sourcebook', detailing the composition of Napoleonic armies and precise colours of their uniforms. And that was just for a five-minute diversion into a Waterloo anniversary project that didn't go anywhere.

Otherwise, I think you want to do a search for the term 'imagi-nations'. As far as I can tell, it's fantasy for historical players who don't want to admit they're playing fantasy.

I'm sooo, sooo sorry.

Plog - Random sculpts and OW Helves 9/3/23 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Denver CO

There are plenty of historical gamers who can get salty over percieved inaccuracies (the button counters) from uniforms to orders of battle. What I've noticed though is that most historical players know that they are simulating history at best and playing out historical fiction for the most part and are just looking for a good game. A good rules set with smooth mechanics is highly prized as s vehicle to get existing collections to the table or as inspiration for starting a new period. Don't get me wrong, there are still conflicts (the amount of digital ink spilled over basing for the new ancient/medieval game Swordpoint was hilarious) but much less so then I've noticed for GW or PP games.

As for generic fantasy/si fi rule sets you've got Dragon Rampant (osprey) and Horizon Wars (also osprey I think). Rogue stars for small scale si fi skirmish and all the various Song of Blades editions. Hordes of the Things is a generic mass battle rule set. Frostgrave is a great fantasy skirmish game with no set minitures and the background is vague enough for you to tell any story you want. The rules are out there.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






18th and 19th-century gamers are paradoxically often quite open to fictional colour schemes. You're going to get laughed at if you field French grenadiers in yellow jackets with green tunics, but "imagi-nations" is a thing, so those are now Baron Harkonnen's Ruritanan regiment".

As far as sci-fi and fantasy rules go, I'm mot familiar with skirmish-level rules - for sci fi there's Rogue Stars from Osprey and Blasters and Bulkheads from Four-Color Studios. Both of those will handily cover a 40k Kill Team, Necromunda, Gorkamorka or Inquisimunda-style game.

For something larger-scale, there's Tomorrow's War or Dirtside II (the latter having the advantage of being free), although those seem to fall into the idea that sci-fi warfafre will look like the 80s US military with better special effects, so I'm not sure how well they'll handle non-human armies (specifically from the point of view of morale and psychology).

Or take the rules you already play and adapt them. Is there something about 40k or Warmachine that everyone in your group complains about, but still follows because "it's what the rules say"? Or a model that;s universally agreed to be undercosted? No need to wait for GW or PP to do something about it, just make your own changes.

Old- and Middle-hammer are things, too. At the moment I'm not sure how much focus there is on gaming (as opposed to painting or collecting), but if you ask around, there might be more people than you'd think who wouldn't mind going to an earlier edition.

Vermis, I've still got the Warmachine playtest rules - four pages of rules and two pages to cover the stats, spells, weapons and special rules for Kreoss' and Stryker's battlegroups. I'm still not entirely sure all the hundreds pf pages of rules for mk 3 make it significantly more fun for me.
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

Or take the rules you already play and adapt them. Is there something about 40k or Warmachine that everyone in your group complains about, but still follows because "it's what the rules say"? Or a model that;s universally agreed to be undercosted? No need to wait for GW or PP to do something about it, just make your own changes.


If you're talking to me, then clearly you clearly haven't read anything I actually wrote.

If you're not talking to me, then please ignore the above.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






That was a generic "you", not directed at anyone in particular.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Lancaster PA

I would chime in for Frostgrave being a lot of fun too. In fact, the last time I saw Khador models on the table was playing that, and they looked very nice!

I am pretty grumpy with PP lately, and have pretty much decided I will play CasualMachine with RiTides and some buddies while building fun models and scratch builds for counts as. We have been enjoying Kings of War along with Frostgrave, and while there isn't anything that matches Warmachine/Hordes for complicated machine type fun, it will be a while before I decide to spend money on it again. I have Warroom with all the cards, so every new thing just needs a model from the stash. The longest part is finding where that damned model is among the thousands of others.


Woad to WAR... on Celts blog, which is mostly Circle Orboros
"I'm sick of auto-penetrating attacks against my behind!" - Kungfuhustler 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





 Vermis wrote:

And to be frank, when I hear people talk about PUGs against strangers being the way of wargames, I think 'what - don't you talk to anyone?'


If pugging were easy and people were willing to talk about the game before they sit down to play, then Age of Sigmar never would have required points.

Pugging without a core ruleset also means every game is going to be different, which turns lots of people off.

   
Made in gb
Posts with Authority






Norn Iron



Again, not really what I was talking about.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/16 20:01:37


I'm sooo, sooo sorry.

Plog - Random sculpts and OW Helves 9/3/23 
   
 
Forum Index » Privateer Press Miniature Games (Warmachine & Hordes)
Go to: